ArticleBioinformation2026
Effect of ultrasonic versus laser-activated irrigation on smear layer removal - An
Article in Bioinformation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elimination of the smear layer from root canal walls remains a clinical challenge, as residual debris can compromise sealer adaptation and endodontic treatment outcomes. Therefore, it is of interest to compare the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation and erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser-activated irrigation in removing smear layer at different canal levels. Sixty extracted single-rooted human premolars were allocated to four groups: conventional syringe irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation and Er:YAG laser-activated irrigation at 1.0 W and 1.5 W using sodium hypochlorite and EDTA. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation demonstrated that both activation techniques significantly improved smear layer removal compared with conventional irrigation at all canal levels (p<0.001). Thus, Er:YAG laser-activated irrigation at 1.5 W showed superior smear layer removal in the apical third, suggesting its potential as an effective adjunct in contemporary endodontic practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.